RACK Brandon Mayfield

[Dinsdale]

My Beaverton Homie won a great freaking victory for America.


But it's appalling it even made ot this far. Everyone in the country not named mvscal had a very clear understanding that the BoR was being grossly violated. I'll cut mvscal some slack, since the word "inalienable" is obviously beyond his comprehension.


And you know what?


FUCK any and all of you that can't understand the basic concept of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."


It isn't that complicated, people. That you would vote for someone who doesn't hold this premise as an absolute is fucking disgusting, and makes you a traitor. Some of you need to brush up on the definition of being American.


The idea some of you got so worked up over fear-mongering and rhetoric that you'd actually support those who are waging a revolution against America is fucking deplorable. DO NOT let it happen again, asshats. If you declare war against the USA, be it from within or outside, you should hang from the gallows in the streets... not get campaign contributions. Get the fuck over yourselves.

[Mikey]

Rack REAL conservatives.

[Dinsdale]

Those damned liberals, thinking they should decide who gets BoR protections, and who doesn't.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Link for les Canadiens?

[Mikey]

Link for les Canadiens?

Here you go...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Link for les Canadiens?

Here you go...

RACK real socialists.

[Dinsdale]

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the USA Patriot Act.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ..."

Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

She said that by asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the U.S. Attorney General's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation what would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

"We are are reviewing the decision," said Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr, who declined further comment.

Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released from custody on May 21, 2004, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized to him.

Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.

In a statement released by his attorney, Elden Rosenthal, Mayfield said Aiken "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."

The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.

I guess the ruling can be summed up with...

No, really... it really is unconstitutional to search someone's home, papers, and effects without warrant or probable cause... just like it should have always been. And certain people don't get to rewrite the Constitution just because they felt like it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

And certain people don't get to rewrite the Constitution just because they felt like it.

Dude, your country, or what highly idealized model of it you had in your dome is gone.
Gone. Past tense. Over.

Executive privilege should have told you that.

[battery chucka' one]

FUCK any and all of you that can't understand the basic concept of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

I guess the crux of the argument is how do we define 'unreasonable' searches and seizures? I understand that sitting a CIA agent in your living room, waiting for you to screw up is 'unreasonable'. Is it unreasonable to wonder why, though you've been here for only a week as a 'student', you are calling numbers in a terror state? I don't believe so. Also, who is covered by the Constitution? Just the citizen or the man in line for citizenship or should we also say that Ahmed coming through customs wired to explode is covered, too? Interesting question.

Again, Din son, what would you consider 'unreasonable'?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Also, who is covered by the Constitution?

I believe it's everyone who resides in U.S. sovereign territory.

Thus, Gitmo.

[Dinsdale]

200+ years of Constitutional precedents, and the Battery Chucking Tard needs an explaination?


Fucking priceless.